The Negreira case

[ajnotkeith]

It is same as their argument for Barca though.. they are saying Barca 'got something back' otherwise why do it.

Same applies on smaller scales to gifts to referees and liasing with them before after games etc.

I think Barca will argue that the goal posts have been changed and he was not seen as a public official at the time and cant be seen as that now. While they also bring up the threatening letter to Barca saying he could expose them etc as evidence... well is it not evidence that Barca also rejected that threat? Why would a threat count as evidence of wrong doing when Barca ignored it?

This would be the relevant bit of the law corresponding to your argument :

Payments made to public officials with a view to obtaining a licit benefit (also known as 'facilitating payments') are illegal in Spain. However, there are no quantitative or qualitative restrictions on gifts, travel, meals or entertainment. In this regard, there are two main criteria established by Spanish case law to determine if a gift or gratuity can be considered as an act of bribery:

1. if the gift or gratuity offered or received is not 'socially acceptable'; and
2. if the gift offered or received could affect the decision of the recipient.
   
   According to the SCC, passive bribery takes place when a public official, for personal benefit or for that of a third party, performs one of the following actions:
   
   1. requests or receives a gift, payment or favour or accepts an offer or promise thereof, in exchange for carrying out an act in the exercise of their duties and position that constitutes a criminal offence, or for abstaining from performing their duties;
   2. subsequently requests or receives a gift, payment or favour, or accepts an offer or promise thereof, in exchange for carrying out an act which is inherent to his or her position;
   3. requests or receives a reward for having carried out the acts described above; or
   4. accepts a gift offered due to his or her position or powers.
      
      So they do have to prove that we gave him the money in order for him to carry out an act or acts in our favour, as they charged him with passive bribery (seen above) meaning that there must have been a plan to carry out acts favouring Barca at some point.

 

[iniestaGOAT]

They will do nothing.
As long as I am around, Barcelona will remain untouched.

 

[JamDav1982]

This would be the relevant bit of the law corresponding to your argument :

Payments made to public officials with a view to obtaining a licit benefit (also known as 'facilitating payments') are illegal in Spain. However, there are no quantitative or qualitative restrictions on gifts, travel, meals or entertainment. In this regard, there are two main criteria established by Spanish case law to determine if a gift or gratuity can be considered as an act of bribery:

1. if the gift or gratuity offered or received is not 'socially acceptable'; and
2. if the gift offered or received could affect the decision of the recipient.
   
   According to the SCC, passive bribery takes place when a public official, for personal benefit or for that of a third party, performs one of the following actions:
   1. requests or receives a gift, payment or favour or accepts an offer or promise thereof, in exchange for carrying out an act in the exercise of their duties and position that constitutes a criminal offence, or for abstaining from performing their duties;
   2. subsequently requests or receives a gift, payment or favour, or accepts an offer or promise thereof, in exchange for carrying out an act which is inherent to his or her position;
   3. requests or receives a reward for having carried out the acts described above; or
   4. accepts a gift offered due to his or her position or powers.
      
      So they do have to prove that we gave him the money in order for him to carry out an act or acts in our favour, as they charged him with passive bribery (seen above) meaning that there must have been a plan to carry out acts favouring Barca at some point.

yes and giving gifts can be argued to influence as above unless Real etc try to argue just randomly giving out gifts to referees for no reason but kindness.

 

[ajnotkeith]

There are invoices and it was found through an audit.

That is part of the clubs argument. They paid him through the club when otherwise could have paid him in some far off account that couldnt be tied back.

They paid him through Contreras's shell company.
This was Barca's written response to the Tax Agency when asked about why the money was paid :

“No contract was formalised in writing with said company [Dasnil]. The club does not know the details of the formalisation of the verbal contract as they date back to 2001. That is, the people who must have negotiated those contracts are no longer employees of the club″,

This is to say, the contract with Negreira for his services was purely verbal, and Barca don't have a record of it.

 

[JamDav1982]

They paid him through Contreras's shell company.
This was Barca's written response to the Tax Agency when asked about why the money was paid :

“No contract was formalised in writing with said company [Dasnil]. The club does not know the details of the formalisation of the verbal contract as they date back to 2001. That is, the people who must have negotiated those contracts are no longer employees of the club″,

This is to say, the contract with Negreira for his services was purely verbal, and Barca don't have a record of it.

Yes but they paid him out of the clubs accounts and it was picked up on audit with invocies. Those shell companies were invoicing the club and paid from club accounts.

The amount paid and when was never contracted etc but it was paid from club and evidence of it. It was then picked up in an audit also.

Laporta has already referred to this and said if wrong doing then why pay out of club accounts on back on invoicing.

 

[Don Juan Laporta Estruch]

I actually welcome this. Great chance to finally open up the can of worms that this corrupt league is. If Barca are smart, then their main defence will focus solely on the corruption of Madrid and the hypocrisy systemic in the Franco state.

If the burden of proof is on Barca, then the burden of proof is on Madrid for no getting an advantage due to giving gifts to referees after they make controversial decisions in their favour to win games like that infamous game Vs Villarreal.

Or how about the Malaga player that jumped over the ball so Ronaldo could score in the title decider. Was he given gifts? Make him testify.

Or how about the linesman in 2017 who came out and said he was told to favour Madrid in the Classico . Make him testify.

Or how a Real Madrid fanatic la Liga president is making decisions based solely on what is beneficial for Real Madrid.

Or prove to us that Carlos Megia Davila who would ' receive ' referees at the Bernabeu , didn't influence them or attempt to influence them. And if this was so innocent why they stopped doing it when questioned on it by opposition fans.

If Barca goes down it must take Madrid with it. Burn the league down to dust. It deserves nothing less.

 

[ajnotkeith]

Yes but they paid him out of the clubs accounts and it was picked up on audit with invocies.

The amount paid and when was never contracted etc but it was paid from club and evidence of it. It was then picked up in an audit.

Was the audit carried out retrospectively/after club stopped paying Negreira?
The question would be if audits are regularly carried out by the club why this payment was continually approved from club's accounts over 2 decades, despite there apparently being no record of services rendered.

 

[JamDav1982]

Was the audit carried out retrospectively/after club stopped paying Negreira?
The question would be if audits are regularly carried out by the club why this payment was continually approved from club's accounts over 2 decades, despite there apparently being no record of services rendered.

It was picked up in audits before all came to light and brushed off by board at time while it was said not everyone at club was aware of it.

Barca were billed with invoices and paid them through official club accounts.

To make out no invoices or not picked up in audits is incorrect.

The oppsite is true and Barca try to use that as evidence not trying to hide cheating.

 

[Porque]

This will be appealed and fought hard.

First thing is to fight our defence.

Second is to bring other cases (like Madrid) after this new public ruling.

 

[ajnotkeith]

It was picked up in audits before all came to light and brushed off by board at time while it was said not everyone at club was aware of it.

Barca were billed with invoices and paid them through official club accounts.

To make out no invoices or not picked up in audits is incorrect.

The oppsite is true and Barca try to use that as evidence not trying to hide cheating.

The invoices arent supported by any evidence of services rendered, which would be there if the invoices corresponded to an actual service and weren't attempts of cheating.

This is what the Guardia Civil say :
"Their services are not supported by documented evidence beyond the invoices".
"Barca have not provided any copies of the alleged reports or CDs to us that Negreira's company would have provided".
"Barca have not provided the identity of the professionals or of the people who developed such services".

So in essence there is no real evidence corroborating these invoices and what they were really there for. Barca's explanation is inconsistent and doesn't hold water.

You're right, there are invoices from the club of said payments. I wasn't correct to state that invoices didn't exist in absolute, but they're not backed up by any evidence to suggest they corresponded to reports or services rendered, meaning there is a black hole to explain what these invoices were made for.

When you bill someone for a service you should have a record of what the service is for.

 

[JamDav1982]

The invoices arent supported by any evidence of services rendered, which would be there if the invoices corresponded to an actual service and weren't attempts of cheating.

This is what the Guardia Civil say :
"Their services are not supported by documented evidence beyond the invoices".
"Barca have not provided any copies of the alleged reports or CDs to us that Negreira's company would have provided".
"Barca have not provided the identity of the professionals or of the people who developed such services".

So in essence there is no real evidence corroborating these invoices and what they were really there for. Barca's explanation is inconsistent and doesn't hold water.

You're right, there are invoices from the club of said payments. I wasn't correct to state that invoices didn't exist in absolute, but they're not backed up by any evidence to suggest they corresponded to reports or services rendered, meaning there is a black hole to explain what these invoices were made for.

When you bill someone for a service you should have a record of what the service is for.

You are changing the point... you said there were no invoices and not picked up in any audits which is not true.

From there yes the whole issue is what Barca paid for.

 

[ajnotkeith]

You are changing the point... you said there were no invoices and not picked up in any audits which is not true.

From there yes the whole issue is what Barca paid for.

Like I said you're right there was invoices. I wasn't correct to state there are none there.
But when they're not backed up by any documentation and the club have essentially given a false explanation as to what they were for, they arent complete, invoices are made for services rendered.

Its also not true that the payments weren't masked. They weren't made directly from the club. They were made to Josep Contreras shell company, and then further made onto Negreira, not from the clubs accounts.

 

[JamDav1982]

Like I said you're right there was invoices. I wasn't correct to state there are none there.
But when they're not backed up by any documentation and the club have essentially given a false explanation as to what they were for, they arent complete, invoices are made for services rendered.

Its also not true that the payments weren't masked. They weren't made directly from the club. They were made to Josep Contreras shell company, and then further made onto Negreira, not from the clubs accounts.

There are invoices from those shell companies to Barca and paid out from club accounts that correlate.

Where the club paid that to initially is largely irrelevant and that if anything is Negreria trying to hide it for tax purposes most likely.

Not club trying to hide they paid him at all.... or wouldnt pay out based on invoices and from club account.

Invoices dont always go into the detail you seem to think they do either.

 

[JamDav1982]

In the ruling today they mention Negreiras 'threats' to Barca about exposing them as some kind of evidence.

Not sure how that can stand up if Barca then ignore that threat and dont pay him... does that not then mean the threat at least from Barcas side was a hollow one?

That point seems a fairly easy one for club to counter.

 

[ajnotkeith]

There are invoices from those shell companies to Barca and paid out from club accounts that correlate.

Where the club paid that to initially is largely irrelevant and that if anything is Negreria trying to hide it for tax purposes most likely.

Not club trying to hide they paid him at all.... or wouldnt pay out based on invoices and from club account.

Invoices dont always go into the detail you seem to think they do either.

Why would the club conspire with him to hide a lawful payment (agreeing to pay through shell companies so he can dodge taxes). That makes no sense. The club wouldn't participate in that if the payment was lawful, because they gain nothing from being implicated in his tax dodging/money laundering - that can lead to penalties and charges to the directors. Club would ensure the payments are above board and not made through different shell companies if they had nothing to hide.

If it was as you say and club didn't hide anything at all, they would have said NO when Negreira wanted to launder the money and dodge tax scrutiny. It is ironic thats brought up because if the taxes were properly declared the Treasury would have scrutinised the payments far earlier. The fact they weren't meant that it wasn't reviewed until the tax irregularity was uncovered.

So there was a motive to hide it from tax purposes even speaking from clubs view because it potentially would have been flagged up earlier as it was now. The tax authorities are the ones who initially pointed out the payments were suspicious.

Invoices for 8 million that correspond to no services, in a huge, fan-owned institution like Barcelona? No chance. Stuff like that is absolutely regulated and no director is signing off on that. On top of the charges of bribery and sports corruption you can add unfair administration which also carries a prison sentence.